Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/70
CF–70
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Monday, June 16, 1919, at 11 a.m.
Paris, June 16, 1919, 11 a.m.
- Present
- United States of America
- British Empire
- Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
- France
- Italy
- Japan
| Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. |
} |
Secretaries. |
| M. di Martino. |
| Professor P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter. |
(M. Clemenceau and M. Mantoux were not present during the discussion of
the first few items.)
1. The Council had before them a memorandum by the Economic the Economic
Commission, headed Periods of Time, recommending certain alterations in
the Treaty of Peace with Germany. (Appendix I).
(After the memorandum had been read, it was agreed that these alterations
should not be approved.) Periods of Time for the
Economic Provisions: Alteration in the Treaty of Peace With Germany
Proposed by the Economic Commission
2. The Council had before them a suggested modification in Article 276c
of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. (Appendix II.)
(After the proposed alteration had been read, it was agreed that it was
not necessary to make the Germany alteration.) Treatment of Nationals of Allied and Associated Powers: Proposed
Alteration in Article 276c of the Treaty of Peace with
Germany
3. The Council had before them proposals of the Special Aeronautical
Committee in regard to the exportation and subsequent repurchase of
aeronautical material in Germany (Appendix III). At the end of this
memorandum it was proposed that the measures, if adopted, should be
extended to all enemy States and to all war material.
(After the memorandum had been read, it was agreed that the proposals
should not be adopted.) Proposed Addition to the
Treaty of Peace in Regard to Aeronautical Material and Other War
Material in Germany
4. The Council had before them Report No. 5 by the Protection of
Committee on New States, recommending an additional Article for
insertion in the Treaty of Peace with committee on Germany after Article
93, or after Article 155. (Appendix IV.) Protection
of Minorities: Addition to the Treaty of Peace, Proposed by the
Committee on Minorities
Mr. Lloyd George said that the only effect of
this would be to make the Germans suspicious.
[Page 470]
(After the proposed addition had been read, it was agreed that the
proposals of the Committee on Minorities should not be adopted.)
5. Sir Maurice Hankey reported that on the
previous day, a verbal alteration of the revised Article 438 of the
Treaty of Peace with Germany, on the subject of Religious Missions,
which had been approved by the Council on Saturday, June 14th,1 had been initialled by President Wilson and Mr.
Lloyd George, and had provisionally been Germany acted on by the
Drafting Committee. They had felt justified in doing this, as the
British and United States Governments were more concerned than other
Governments in the alteration. He now asked for the initials of the
representatives of the other states. Religious
Missions in Former German Colonies: Alteration to Article 438 of the
Treaty of Peace With Germany
The alteration in question, consisted of the substitution for the
following words, “composed of persons belonging to the same or
corresponding religious denomination as the Mission whose property is
involved” by the following, “composed of persons holding the faith of
the Mission whose property is involved.”
Mr. Lloyd George said that the reason for the
change was that there was no religious denomination in the British
Empire precisely corresponding to the German Lutheran denomination. The
word faith had been substituted for denomination, as it would enable
other denominations closely akin to the Lutherans, such as the
Presbyterians, to take over the Lutheran Missions.
M. Sonnino did not much like the word faith,
the use of which, he said, would bring about difficulties with the
Vatican.
(After a discussion, in the course of which, the proposed declaration to
the Vatican was brought up, M. Sonnino withdrew his objections, and the
revised Article 438 was initialled by M. Clemenceau, M. Sonnino and
Baron Makino.) (Appendix V.)
Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward the initialled copy to the
Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.
6. With reference to C. F. 66, Minute 2,2 in the course of the previous discussion, Mr.
Lloyd George handed in the draft of a Proposed declaration which it was
proposed to make to the Declaration Vatican in regard to German
Missions. Proposed Declaration to the
Vatican
The draft was read, and in the course of the discussion, the following
alterations were made:—
Paragraph 2. Last line. At the suggestion of Baron Makino, the words “in
Africa and Asia Minor” were omitted.
Baron Makino pointed out that there might be
Missions in the Pacific Islands also.
[Page 471]
Paragraph 3. M. Sonnino suggested that the following words in lines 10 to
13 might cause considerable difficulties:—“the property of Missions
under the Holy See will be placed at the disposal of persons of the
Roman Catholic faith authorised thereto by the Holy See.”
The Council approved of the following substitute:—
“The property of Missions under the Holy See will be placed at
the disposal of properly authorised
persons of the Roman Catholic faith”, the following words being
omitted:—“authorised thereto by the Holy See.”
President Wilson said that he could not accept
the following additional paragraph, which had been proposed in case it
were desired to apply the declaration to territory other than mandated
territory:—
“These principles laid down by International agreement for
territories administered under mandate will also be observed by
the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in all territories
belonging to them.”
(It was agreed to omit this paragraph.)
A copy of the final declaration, as generally approved, is attached.
(Appendix VI.)
Baron Makino asked, however, that the final
decision might be reserved until the afternoon.
7. With reference to C. F. 65, Minute 11,3 the Council had before them a draft paragraph for
inclusion in the reply by the Allies to the German Counter-proposals on
the subject of Memel. Memel
(This reply was approved subject to the following addition after the word
“sovereignty.”
“particularly in view of the fact that Memel is the
only sea outlet for Lithuania.”
A copy of the paragraph, as finally approved, was handed to M. Tardieu
for the Editing Committee. (Appendix 7.)
Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward it to the
Secretary-General.)
8. With reference to C. F. 57, Minute l,4
M. Clemenceau said M. Loucheur had pressed for
a small verbal alteration on page 6 of the reply to the German
Counter-proposals on the subject Reparation: of Reparation.
(After a short discussion, it was agreed that the following sentence
should be deleted:—“Suitable facilities for inspecting the damage done
will be afforded to Germany’s Agents at reasonable times” and that the
following
[Page 472]
sentence should be
substituted:—“The necessary facilities for making reliable estimates of
the damage done by her will be afforded to Germany.”Reparation: Alteration in the Reply to the German
Counter-proposals
A copy of the final version of the reply is contained in Appendix
VIII.
The change was communicated by Sir Maurice Hankey to M. Loucheur and M.
Tardieu, who were in the adjoining Room.)
9. M. Sonnino handed in the attached letter,
dated June 14th, 1919, addressed by M. Orlando to M. Clemenceau, as
President of the Peace Conference, (Appendix IX) on the subject of the
peculiar difficulties which would face Italy should the signature of the
Conditions of Peace with Germany take place before the settlement of the
future Italian boundaries. This, as explained in detail in the letter,
arises from the fact that the signature of the Peace Treaty with Germany
implies also the signature of the Covenant of the League of Nations, one
of the clauses of which, contemplates reciprocal guarantees for the
territories of the signing powers. The Reservation by
Italy in Regard to the League of Nations Covenant in the German
Treaty
M. Orlando had telegraphed, M. Sonnino continued, to ask that Italy’s
reserve should be recorded, namely:—
“That the Italian Delegation is of opinion that the Clauses of
the League of Nations, just because they refer to a territorial
asset already established, do not apply to any of those
arrangements and to those questions connected with them, which
form the object of the Peace and which have not been settled
yet.”
M. Orlando had always hoped, when giving his previous warnings on the
subject, that the question of the Italian claims might be regulated
before the signature of the German Treaty, and thus it was imperative to
make these reservations now.
President Wilson suggested that these
reservations were entirely unnecessary, since none of these mooted
questions arise out of the Peace with Germany. The Austrian Treaty, he
pointed out, also contains the Covenant of the League of Nations, and
lays down that Austria agrees to recognise some of the States within
boundaries to be decided by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.
Consequently, the League of Nations Covenant could not apply to an
unclosed question.
Mr. Lloyd George suggested that M. Sonnino
should write a letter to the Council.
M. Sonnino said that it would be sufficient for
the moment if his reservation was taken note of on the
procès-verbal.
(It was agreed to take formal note of the reservation contained in M.
Orlando’s letter of June 14th, 1919.)
[Page 473]
10. The text of an agreement between the United States of America, France
and Great Britain, in regard to the Rhine Provinces,4a was approved by M. Clemenceau, Mr. Lloyd
George and President Wilson. Occupation of the Rhine
Provinces
Mr. Lloyd George pointed out that some similar
arrangement would have to be made with Belgium. Sir Maurice Hankey was
instructed to prepare a copy for signature.
11. Sir Maurice Hankey said he had received a
telephone message from the Drafting Committee stating that the Rhine
Convention was now practically ready to be handed to the Germans. The
material given the Drafting Committee had not specified who were to be
the High Contracting Parties. As the Italian representative on the
Drafting Committee had stated that Italy would like to be a High
Contracting Party, notwithstanding that she was not represented on the
High Commission, the Drafting Committee had included Italy as well as
Belgium with the British, French and United States as High Contracting
Parties. Rhine Convention
Baron Sonnino said that the only object of
making Italy a High Contracting Party was to enable her to send a
Military Attaché to the High Commission in order to keep her informed of
what was going on.
At the Commission which considered this subject Lord Robert Cecil had
said that Italy could always send a liaison officer.
M. Clemenceau doubted if there was much value
to Italy in a liaison officer who would only [apparent omission] between
operative bodies.
Baron Sonnino said that if there was to be no
Italian liaison officer, it was no use Italy being a High Contracting
Party.
(It was agreed:—
1. That Italy should not be a High Contracting Party.
(This was immediately notified to the Drafting Committee by Sir Maurice
Hankey.)
2. That the Convention should be handed to the German Delegation at the
same time as the reply to the German Counter-proposals.)
12. President Wilson said he was to be away at
Brussels from the evening of Tuesday, June 17th, until the morning of
Friday, June 20th.
Mr. Lloyd George said he contemplated a short
absence. Proceedings of the Council
The Council then adjourned upstairs for the discussion of certain
military questions with the Military Representatives at Versailles, the
proceedings being recorded as a separate meeting.
Villa Majestic, Paris, 16 June, 1919.
[Page 474]
Appendix I to CF–70
M–271
Memo. by Economic Commission
Periods of Time
In the final provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Germany it is
laid down that for the determination of all periods of time provided
tor in the Treaty, the date of the coming into force of the Treaty
will be the date of the first proces verbal of the deposit of
ratifications, this first proces verbal having to be drawn up as
soon as the Treaty has been ratified by Germany on the one hand and
by three of the principal Allied and Associated Powers on the
other.
In various parts of Sections III., IV., V. and VI. of Part X.
(Economic Clauses) of the Treaty, provision is made for action being
taken by an Allied or Associated Power within a stated period of the
coming in force of the Treaty. It is clear that if these periods are
reckoned from the date of the coming into force laid down in the
final provisions mentioned above, they may have expired before some
of the Allied and Associated Powers have deposited their
ratifications. The Economic Commission accordingly decided
unanimously that the Drafting Committee should be requested to make
the necessary alterations so that the periods of time mentioned in
the Sections of the Treaty in question should begin to run for each
Allied or Associated Power from the date of the ratification of the
Treaty by that Power.
The Drafting Committee feel some difficulty in acting on this request
without the specific authority of the Council of the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers. The matter is an important one and it
is therefore suggested that the Council should authorise the
Drafting Committee to take the necessary action to deal with the
matter.
Appendix II to CF–70
M–272
Chapter IV—Treatment of Nationals of
Allied and Associated Powers
Article 276 of the Treaty with Germany with the suggested
modification of paragraph (c) as
underlined:—5
“Germany undertakes:—
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
(c) Not to subject the nationals of
the Allied and Associated Powers, their property, rights and
interests, including Companies
[Page 475]
and Associations in which they are
interested, to any charge, tax. or impost, direct or
indirect, other or higher than those which are or may be
imposed on her own nationals or their property, rights or
interests, or on the nationals of any more
favoured nation or their property, rights or
interests”.
Appendix III to CF–70
WCP–1007
Proposals of the Special Aeronautical
Committee re Aeronautical Material in Germany
General Duval, Chairman of the Special Aeronautical Committee. To the
President of the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference.
At the request of General Groves, Military Delegate for the British
Empire, I summoned to an extraordinary Meeting on June 10th, 1919,
the members of the Special Committee, whose names are as follows:
- General Patrick for the United States of America.
- General Groves for the British Empire.
- Admiral Orsini for Italy.
- General Nara for Japan.
Admiral Orsini being at Milan, was not represented at the
Meeting.
General Groves at the opening of the Meeting explained the following
reasons which were to form the basis for discussion:
In February it came to the knowledge of the British Military Attachés
at Berlin and the Hague that the Germans were exporting their
aeronautical material into neutral countries especially Holland,
Denmark, Norway, as well as Russia. These exports which were about
to diminish from that date suddenly resumed considerable importance
when the Air Clauses in the Treaty of Peace appeared in the
press.
General Groves thought that there were three different methods of
explaining these exports:—
- (i)
- The Germans were placing their aeronautical material
outside the control of the Allied and Associated States by
selling them to neutral countries under the condition of
their being able to repurchase them six months after the
Treaty of Peace.
- (ii)
- The Germans, although definitely selling their material
were creating a new market for their goods to the detriment
of Allied industries.
- (iii)
- By creating markets in this manner Germany was permitting
her aircraft industry to live and even to develop. She was
thus preserving enormous facilities for manufacture which
would form for her the basis of a great aerial Power.
[Page 476]
In consequence, the British Delegate proposed:—
- (i)
- The suppression of aircraft manufacture in Germany and the
enemy countries after the Treaty of Peace for a fixed
period.
- (ii)
- The presentation of a note by the Supreme Council to the
German Government, informing the latter that the Allied and
Associated States had been informed of the exports of
material made by Germany, and the addition of a new clause
to the Treaty of Peace compelling Germany to render an
account of all aeronautical material in her possession on
the 11th November, 1918, as well as of material constructed
since that date, an indemnity to be paid for all material
exported.
- (iii)
- The despatch of a note to the neutral countries warning
them that all aeronautical material actually in Germany
being, in accordance with the Clauses of the Treaty of
Peace, the property of the Allied and Associated Powers, the
purchase of this material by them would be considered as a
hostile act.
- (iv)
- The presentation of a note to the Germans, either by the
High Command or by the Armistice Commission, directing them
to put a stop to these exports under the penalty of the
addition of severe measure in the Treaty of Peace and of
re-imposition of the blockade.
On the first proposal, the Delegates having expressed the wish that
the reports of the Aeronautical Commission of the 15th March and 7th
April, 1919,5a should be
again brought to the notice of the Supreme Council, decided to adopt
the attitude which they had taken at the time of the discussions
which were the basis of these reports.
France and Japan, however, now supported the British point of view,
which would reduce to a period of from two to five years after the
ratification of the Treaty of Peace the duration of the absolute
prohibition of aircraft manufacture in Germany.
The United States maintained their original reservations.
Article 201 of the Treaty of Peace would, in consequence, require
modification.
With respect to modifications to be made in certain Articles of the
Treaty of Peace in consequence of new circumstances, General
Patrick, Delegate of the United States, was, moreover, of the
opinion that all the articles could be amended by the Supreme
Council so long as the Treaty had not been ratified. The other
members of the Committee were of the same view.
The second and third proposals were adopted by all the members of the
Committee for recommendation to the Supreme Council.
The Committee unanimously request that these measures, if they are
adopted, should be extended to all the enemy States and to all war
material.
[Page 477]
Appendix IV to CF–706
commission on new states
Report Number Five to the Council of
Four
The Commission on New States, in the course of its labors, on the
protection of minorities in the new states or in the states
receiving large increases in territory, has observed that certain of
the latter states, notably Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro are
already bound, in the matter of religious liberty, by the
stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878.7
It thought that the best means of having these states (which are not
new states) accept definite engagements for their old territories,
was to free them at the same time, from the engagements imposed upon
them in 1878 as a condition for the recognition of their
independence. It is under the form of treaties between the Allied
and Associated Powers and these States that the abrogation of the
Treaty of Berlin, on this subject, will be stated.
However, it must not be forgotten that, since Germany is not one of
the signatories of the new treaties, it might continue to take
advantage of the old stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin.
The Commission on New States, therefore believes that it should
suggest to the Council of Four the insertion in the Treaty with
Germany of an explicit article on this subject, the place of which
would be sufficiently indicated, either after Article 93, or rather
after Article 155 (Turkey and Bulgaria) and the wording of which
follows hereafter.
A similar clause should be inserted in the Treaties with Austria and
Hungary, as successors to part of the former Austro-Hungarian
Empire, which was one of the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin. If
the suggestion were adopted, the proposed article would be
immediately sent to the drafting committee to be revised in form and
inserted in the place which may seem the best to the said
committee.
The President of the Commission On New
States
Article To Be Inserted in the Peace Treaty With
Germany
Germany gives, in advance, its approval of the Treaties and
agreements concerning the protection of minorities, equality of
commerce and transit, which may be concluded between the Allied and
Associated
[Page 478]
Powers and
Greece, the Serb, Croat, Slovene State and all other States bound by
the clauses of the Treaty of Berlin concerning the protection of
religious minorities.
From the conclusions of said agreements, Germany binds itself to
consider as abrogated, with respect to the States concerned, the
conditions imposed for the recognition of the independence of these
states by Articles 27, 35, and 44 of the Treaty of Berlin of July
13, 1878.
Appendix V to CF–70
M–264 (Revise)
Article 438 of the Treaty of Peace
With Germany
The Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers has on June
14th, 1919, approved the following alterations to be substituted for
that part of the first paragraph beginning at the end of line six
and for the second paragraph, leaving the third paragraph
untouched.
“In order to ensure the due execution of this undertaking the
Allied and Associated Governments will hand over such property
to boards of trustees appointed by or approved by the
Governments and composed of persons holding the faith of the
Mission whose property is involved.”
“The Allied and Associated Governments, while continuing to
maintain full control as to the individuals by whom the Missions
are conducted, will safeguard the interests of such
Missions.”
- W. W.
- G. C.
- D. Ll. G.
- N. M.
- S. S.
Paris
, 16
June, 1919.
Appendix VI to CF–70
M–275 (Revise)
Draft Declaration Regarding German
Missions
- 1.
- The Principal Allied and Associated Powers have carefully
considered the representations made to them regarding the
position of Missions under the Holy See in territory belonging
to them or of which the Government is entrusted to them in
accordance with the Treaty of Peace. They believe that the
following declaration will serve to remove all misunderstandings
as to their policy:—
- 2.
- The Provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Germany are in
general confined to obligations assumed by Germany towards the
[Page 479]
Allied and
Associated Powers or by the Allied and Associated Powers towards
Germany. The obligations which the Allied and Associated Powers
intend to assume towards each other and towards all the members
of the League of Nations are left to be embodied in subsequent
agreements. In particular, the provisions of Article 22 of the
League of Nations Covenant will be carried into effect by solemn
agreements laying down the obligations to be assumed by the
mandatories of the League.
- 3.
- In regard to Missions, these “mandatory” agreements will give
the fullest interpretation to the words of Article 22
guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion. To this end,
these agreements will provide that missionaries of all
denominations shall be allowed freely to prosecute their
calling, to maintain their schools and other institutions and to
acquire and hold property of every description. In any case,
where, by the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, it
becomes necessary to transfer the property of German missions to
Boards of Trustees, the property of missions under the Holy See
will be placed at the disposal of properly authorised persons of
the Roman Catholic faith. In any case where, by the terms of the
same treaty, it becomes necessary to exercise any control as to
the individuals by whom the missions are conducted, such action
will be taken in due consultation with the authorities of the
denomination concerned.
Appendix VII to CF–70
M–273 (Revise)
memel
The Allied and Associated Powers reject the suggestion that the
cession of the district of Memel conflicts with the principle of
nationality. The district in question has always been Lithuanian;
the majority of the population is Lithuanian in origin and in
speech; and the fact that the city of Memel itself is in large part
German is no justification for maintaining this whole district under
German sovereignty, particularly in view of the fact that Memel is
the only sea outlet for Lithuania.
It has been decided that Memel and the adjoining district shall be
transferred to the Allied and Associated Powers for the reason that
the states [status] of the Lithuanian
territories is not yet established.
[Page 480]
Appendix VIII to CF–70
WCP–950
1st Revise 11.6.19 (Morning)
2nd Revise 11.6.19 (Afternoon)
3rd Revise 16.6.19 (Morning)
reparation
Reply to German Counter
Proposals
(Finally approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers on afternoon of June 11th, 1919, with a small
amendment (underlined on page 6),8 approved
on the morning of June 16th.)
The Allied and Associated Governments, consistently with their policy
already expressed, decline to enter into a discussion of the
principles underlying the Reparation Clauses of the Conditions of
Peace, which have been prepared with scrupulous regard for the
correspondence leading up to the Armistice of November 11th, 1918,
the final memorandum of which dated 5th November, 1918,9
contains the following words:—
“Further, in the conditions of peace laid down in his address
to Congress of the 8th January, 1918, the President declared
that the invaded territories must be restored as well as
evacuated and freed, and the Allied Governments feel that no
doubt ought to be allowed to exist as to what this provision
implies. By it they understand that compensation will be
made by Germany for all damage done to the civilian
population of the Allies and their property by the
aggression of Germany by land, by sea, and from the
air.”
To the extent that your reply deals with practical phases of the
execution of the principles enunciated in the Conditions of Peace,
you appear to proceed on the basis of a complete misapprehension,
which is the more difficult to understand as the inferences you draw
and the statements which you make are wholly at variance with both
the letter and the spirit of the Treaty Clauses. For purposes of
clarification, however, and in order that there may be no possible
ground for misunderstanding, the Allied and Associated Governments
submit the following observations:—
The vast extent and manifold character of the damage caused to the
Allied and Associated Governments in consequence of the war has
created a reparation problem of extraordinary magnitude and
complexity, only to be solved by a continuing body, limited in
personnel and invested with broad powers to deal with the problem in
relation to the general economic situation. The Allied and
Associated Powers, recognising this situation, themselves delegate
power and authority to a Reparation Commission. This Reparation
Commission is, however, instructed by the Treaty itself so to
exercise and interpret its powers as to ensure in the interest of
all, as early and complete a discharge
[Page 481]
by Germany of her reparation obligations as is
consistent with the true maintenance of the social, economic and
financial structure of a Germany earnestly striving to exercise her
full power to repair the loss and damage she has caused.
The provisions of Article 241, by which the German Government is to
invest itself with such powers as may be needed to carry out its
obligations, are not to be misconstrued as giving the Commission
power to dictate the domestic legislation of Germany. Nor does
Paragraph 12 (b), of Annex II, give the
Commission power to prescribe or enforce taxes or to dictate the
character of the German budget, but it is to examine the latter for
two specified purposes. This is necessary in order that it may
intelligently and constructively exercise the discretion accorded to
it in Germany’s interest particularly by Article 234, with regard to
extending the date and modifying the form of payments. The
provisions of Article 240 with regard to the supply of information
are similar in character and purpose and there should be little
occasion for the exercise of these powers when once the amount of
the liability of Germany is fixed, if Germany is in a position to,
and does, comply with the schedule of payments which then will have
been notified to her and with the specific provisions of the several
Annexes relative to reparation in kind. It is further to be observed
that the power of modification accorded by the said Article 236 [234] is expressly designed to permit of a
modification in Germany’s interest of a
schedule of payments which events may demonstrate to be beyond
Germany’s reasonable capacity. The Allied and Associated Powers
vigorously reject the suggestion that the Commission, in exercising
the power conferred by Article 240 and by Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of
Annex IV, might require the divulgence of trade secrets and similar
confidential data.
The observations of the German Delegation present a view of the
Commission so distorted and so inexact, that it is difficult to
believe that the clauses of the Treaty have been calmly or carefully
examined. It is not an engine of oppression or a device for
interfering with German Sovereignty. It has no forces, which it
commands; it has no executive powers within the territory of
Germany; it cannot, as is suggested, direct or control the
educational or other systems of the country. Its business is to fix
what is to be paid; to satisfy itself that Germany can pay; and to
report to the Powers, whose Delegation it is, in case Germany makes
default. If Germany raises the money required in her own way, the
Commission cannot order that it shall be raised in some other way;
if Germany offers payment in kind, the Commission may accept such
payment, but, except as specified in the Treaty itself, the
Commission cannot require such a payment. The German observations
appear to miss the point that the Commission
[Page 482]
is directed to study the German system of
taxation for the protection of the German people no less than for
the protection of their own. Such study is not inquisitorial, for
the German system of taxation is not an object of curiosity to other
Powers, nor is a knowledge of it an end in itself. If any plea of
inability which the German Government may advance, is to be properly
considered, such a study is necessary. The Commission must test
whether a sincere application is being given to the principle,
accepted in the observations “that the German taxation system should
impose in general on the taxpayer at least as great a burden as that
prevailing in the most heavily burdened of the States represented on
the Reparation Commission”. If the German resources are to be
properly weighed, the first subject of inquiry, and perhaps the
first ground for relief, will be the German fiscal burden.
It is understood that the action necessary to give effect to the
provisions of Annex IV, relative to reparation in kind, will be
taken by Germany on its own initiative, after receipt of
notification from the Reparation Commission.
The provisions of the Treaty are in no wise incompatible with the
creation by Germany of a Commission which will represent Germany in
dealings with the Reparation Commission and which will constitute an
instrumentality for such co-operation as may be necessary. The
Treaty specifically and repeatedly provides opportunities for the
German Government to present facts and arguments with respect to
claims and modes of payments, within the limits of the principles
and express provisions of the Treaty. This may be done through a
commission and no reason is perceived why such a commission could
not work in harmony with the Reparation Commission. Certainly this
is greatly to be desired. The Allied and Associated Powers are
therefore ready to agree to such a procedure as the following:—
Immediately after the Treaty is signed, Germany may present and the
Allied and Associated Powers will receive and examine such evidence,
estimates and arguments, as she may think fit to present. Such
documents need not be final but may be presented subject to
corrections and additions.
At any time within four months of the signature of the Treaty,
Germany shall be at liberty to submit, and the Allied and Associated
Powers will receive and consider, such proposals as Germany may
choose to make. In particular, proposals will be acceptable on the
following subjects and for the following purposes: Germany may offer
a lump sum in settlement of her whole liability, or in settlement of
her liability under any of the particular categories which have been
decided upon and laid down. Germany may offer to undertake to repair
and reconstruct part of the whole of any damaged district, or
[Page 483]
certain classes of damage
in each country or in all the countries which have suffered. Germany
may offer labour, materials or technical service for use in such
work, even though she does not undertake to do the work herself. She
may suggest any practicable plan, category by category, or for the
reparations as a whole, which will tend to shorten the period of
enquiry and bring about a prompt and effectual conclusion. Without
making further specifications, it may be said in a word that Germany
is at liberty to make any suggestion or offer of a practical and
reasonable character for the purposes of simplifying the assessment
of the damage, eliminating any question or questions from the scope
of the detailed enquiry, promoting the performance of the work and
accelerating the definition of the ultimate amount to be paid. The necessary facilities for making reliable
estimates of the damage done by her will be afforded to
Germany. Three conditions and three only are imposed upon
the tender of these proposals. Firstly, the German authorities will
be expected before making such proposals to confer with the
representatives of the Powers directly concerned. Secondly, such
offers must be unambiguous, and must be precise and clear. Thirdly,
they must accept the categories and the reparation clauses as
matters settled beyond discussion. The Allied and Associated Powers
will not entertain arguments or appeals directed to any alteration.
The Allied and Associated Powers have to remark that in the
Observations submitted the German Delegation has made no definite
offer at all but only vague expressions of willingness to do
something undefined. A sum of £5,000,000,000 is indeed mentioned,
and this is calculated to give the impression of an extensive offer,
which upon examination it proves not to be. No interest is to be
paid at all. It is evident that till 1927 there is no substantial
payment but only the surrender of military material and the
devolution upon other Powers of large portions of Germany’s own
debt. Thereafter a series of undefined instalments is to be agreed,
which are not to be completed for nearly half a century. The present
value of this distant prospect is small, but it is all that Germany
tenders to the victims of her aggression in satisfaction of their
past sufferings and their permanent burthens.
Within two months thereafter the Allied and Associated Powers will so
far as may be possible, return their answer to any proposals that
may be made. It is impossible to declare in advance that they will
be accepted, and if accepted, they may be subject to conditions,
which can be discussed and arranged. The Allied and Associated
Powers, however, declare that such proposals will be seriously and
fairly considered; no one could be better pleased than they, if, in
the result, a fair, speedy, and a practical settlement were arrived
at. The questions are bare questions of fact, namely, the amount of
the liabilities, and they are
[Page 484]
susceptible of being treated in this way.
Beyond this, the Powers cannot be asked to go.
The Powers will, however, make a declaration on another point, as
follows: The resumption of German industry involves access by the
German people to food supplies and by the German manufacturers to
the necessary raw materials and provision for their transport to
Germany from overseas. The resumption of German industry is an
interest of the Allied and Associated Powers as well as an interest
of Germany. They are fully alive to this fact and therefore declare
that they will not withhold from Germany commercial facilities
without which this resumption cannot take place, but that, subject
to conditions and within limits, which cannot be laid down in
advance, and, subject also to the necessity for having due regard to
the special economic situation created for Allied and Associated
countries by German aggression and the war, they are prepared to
afford to Germany facilities in these directions for the common
good.
Even if no settlement were arrived at, it must be evident that the
early production of the German evidence would greatly abbreviate the
enquiry, and accelerate the decisions. The information at present at
hand comes from one side only. The German Authorities have had long
occupation of a large part of the damaged areas and have been over
the ground, forwards and backwards, within the last twelve or
fifteen months. Their information must be extensive and exact. The
Allied and Associated Powers have as yet had no access to this mass
of material. The mere comparison of the evidence forthcoming on the
one side and the other must greatly narrow the field of dispute and
may eliminate dispute altogether. It is obvious that, if the class
of damages done in the devastated areas can be dealt with in this
fashion, the liability under the other categories can be quickly
established, for it depends on the statistics and particulars of a
far simpler character. By giving a satisfactory covenant to execute
the work of rebuilding themselves, the Germans could at once dispose
of the only difficult or long subject of inquiry.
Meanwhile, the draft Treaty must be accepted as definitive and must
be signed. The Allied and Associated Powers cannot any longer delay
to assure their security. Germany cannot afford to deny to her
populations the peace which is offered to them. The Reparations
Commission must be constituted and must commence its task. The only
question open will be how best to execute the provisions of the
Treaty.
The foregoing should suffice to demonstrate the reasonableness of the
conditions under which Germany is to discharge her reparation
obligations, and how utterly unfounded are the criticisms of the
German reply. These are, indeed, explicable only on the theory that
the German plenipotentiaries have read into the Conditions of Peace,
in clear defiance
[Page 485]
of their
express terms, an intent which it would be not unnatural to see
evidenced by victorious nations which have been the victims of
cruelty and devastation on a vast and premeditated scale. The
burdens of Germany undeniably are heavy, but they are imposed under
conditions of justice by peoples whose social well-being and
economic prosperity have been gravely impaired by wrongs which it is
beyond the utmost power of Germany to repair.
Appendix IX to CF–70
[Letter From the Head of the Italian
Delegation (Orlando) to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]
My Dear Mr. President, Several times
already, during private conversations with each of my three
colleagues, I had the opportunity to call their attention to the
peculiar difficulties which Italy would have faced should the
signature of the Conditions of Peace with Germany take place before
the settlement of the future Italian boundaries. I very clearly
expressed this same idea at a meeting of the Four, and, to be
precise, during the afternoon of April 24th last,10 President Wilson objecting
to my argument remarked:
“Strictly speaking the decisions in regard the Italian
frontiers do not affect the Peace with Germany but only with
the Austrian Hungarian Empire. Henceforth certainly I could
see no inconsistency between Italy taking part in the Treaty
with Germany and reserving the Treaty with Austria.”
To such remark of the President I replied with a few commentaries of
political character, but I insisted, above all, in pointing out
that:
“the signature of the Peace Treaty with
Germany implies also the signature of the Covenant of the
League of Nations. One of the clauses of said Covenant
contemplates reciprocal guarantees for the territories of
the signing Powers. The result would be that Italy would
engage itself to guarantee the territories of other
countries, without being itself guaranteed.”
I concluded by saying: “Such conditions would prevent me from signing
the Peace with Germany, in case territorial questions with Austria
were not previously settled.”
The question was not given, at the time, any further consideration,
nor was afterwards taken up again, because until a few days ago, the
hope had been entertained that after the settlement of the Italian
frontiers with Austria, it would also have been possible to settle
the Italian oriental and Adriatic boundaries, as well as some
[Page 486]
other important questions
interesting Italy. But as unfortunately such possibility seems to
have vanished, the question put down in a formal way during the
meeting of April 24th, comes again in its integrity.
Having given such question a new and careful consideration for it
concerns an indispensable guarantee of the interests of my country,
I must ask you to agree with the following reserve viz. that the
Italian Delegation is of opinion that the clauses of the League of
Nations, just because they refer to a territorial asset already
established, do not apply to any of those arrangements and to those
questions connected with them, which form the object of the Peace
Conference and which have not been settled yet.
While I have the honour to bring the aforesaid to your knowledge it
remains understood that my colleague Baron Sonnino, who fully
represents me at the Conference, will have the opportunity to
discuss the matter with you and to reach a decision about it.
Identical communication has been sent to President Wilson and to Mr.
Lloyd George.
Believe me [etc.]
[No signature on file copy]
